Repsona MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '添付します' implies a write/mutation operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the file is already attached, whether the operation is idempotent, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient Japanese sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded with key constraints or prerequisites.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with 4 required parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address error conditions, success responses, permission requirements, or relationships to sibling tools (especially upload_file which likely provides the fileId). The agent lacks crucial context for successful invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters with their types and descriptions. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how model and modelId must correspond) or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('添付します' - attach) and target resources ('ファイルをタスクやノートに' - files to tasks or notes), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'detach_file' or 'upload_file', which would be needed for a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing file ID from upload_file), when not to use it, or how it differs from related operations like detach_file. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.